Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

You're probably overthinking it. Call a lawyer.

Call Now: 904-383-7448
Florida Statute 171.031 - Full Text and Legal Analysis
Florida Statute 171.031 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
Link to State of Florida Official Statute
F.S. 171.031 Case Law from Google Scholar Google Search for Amendments to 171.031

The 2025 Florida Statutes

Title XII
MUNICIPALITIES
Chapter 171
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARIES
View Entire Chapter
171.031 Definitions.—As used in this chapter, the following words and terms have the following meanings unless some other meaning is plainly indicated:
(1) “Annexation” means the adding of real property to the boundaries of an incorporated municipality, such addition making such real property in every way a part of the municipality.
(2) “Compactness” means concentration of a piece of property in a single area and precludes any action which would create enclaves, pockets, or finger areas in serpentine patterns. Any annexation proceeding in any county in this state must be designed in such a manner as to ensure that the area will be reasonably compact.
(3) “Contiguous” means that a substantial part of a boundary of the territory sought to be annexed by a municipality is coterminous with a part of the boundary of the municipality. The separation of the territory sought to be annexed from the annexing municipality by a publicly owned county park; a right-of-way for a highway, road, railroad, canal, or utility; or a body of water, watercourse, or other minor geographical division of a similar nature, running parallel with and between the territory sought to be annexed and the annexing municipality, may not prevent annexation under this act, provided the presence of such a division does not, as a practical matter, prevent the territory sought to be annexed and the annexing municipality from becoming a unified whole with respect to municipal services or prevent their inhabitants from fully associating and trading with each other, socially and economically. However, nothing in this subsection may be construed to allow local rights-of-way, utility easements, railroad rights-of-way, or like entities to be annexed in a corridor fashion to gain contiguity; and when any provision of any special law prohibits the annexation of territory that is separated from the annexing municipality by a body of water or watercourse, then that law shall prevent annexation under this act.
(4) “Contraction” means the reversion of real property within municipal boundaries to an unincorporated status.
(5) “Enclave” means:
(a) Any unincorporated improved or developed area that is enclosed within and bounded on all sides by a single municipality; or
(b) Any unincorporated improved or developed area that is enclosed within and bounded by a single municipality and a natural or manmade obstacle that allows the passage of vehicular traffic to that unincorporated area only through the municipality.
(6) “Feasibility study” means an analysis conducted by qualified staff or consultants of the economic, market, technical, financial, and management feasibility of the proposed annexation or contraction, as applicable.
(7) “Municipality” means a municipality created pursuant to general or special law authorized or recognized pursuant to s. 2 or s. 6, Art. VIII of the State Constitution.
(8) “Newspaper of general circulation” means a newspaper printed in the language most commonly spoken in the area within which it circulates, which is readily available for purchase by all inhabitants in its area of circulation, but does not include a newspaper intended primarily for members of a particular professional or occupational group, a newspaper whose primary function is to carry legal notices, or a newspaper that is given away primarily to distribute advertising.
(9) “Parties affected” means any persons or firms owning property in, or residing in, either a municipality proposing annexation or contraction or owning property that is proposed for annexation to a municipality or any governmental unit with jurisdiction over such area.
(10) “Qualified voter” means any person registered to vote in accordance with law.
(11) “Sufficiency of petition” means the verification of the signatures and addresses of all signers of a petition with the voting list maintained by the county supervisor of elections and certification that the number of valid signatures represents the required percentage of the total number of qualified voters in the area affected by a proposed annexation.
(12) “Urban in character” means an area used intensively for residential, urban recreational or conservation parklands, commercial, industrial, institutional, or governmental purposes or an area undergoing development for any of these purposes.
(13) “Urban purposes” means that land is used intensively for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and governmental purposes, including any parcels of land retained in their natural state or kept free of development as dedicated greenbelt areas.
(14) “Urban services” means any services offered by a municipality, either directly or by contract, to any of its present residents.
History.—s. 1, ch. 74-190; s. 1, ch. 75-297; s. 75, ch. 81-259; s. 1, ch. 84-148; s. 15, ch. 93-206; s. 2, ch. 2023-305.

F.S. 171.031 on Google Scholar

F.S. 171.031 on CourtListener

Amendments to 171.031


Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 171.031

Total Results: 23  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Burton v. City of Belle Glade, 178 F.3d 1175 (11th Cir. 1999).

Cited 426 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 44 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 43, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 14020, 1999 WL 425895

...§ 171.0413 (West.1987 & Supp.1998)). Notably, according to these provisions, the statute prohibited municipalities from annexing any property that did not meet the statute's definition of contiguity. See 1974 Fla. Laws ch. 74-190, § 1 (codified as amended at Fla. Stat. Ann. § 171.031(11) (West 1987)).3 Two attempts to secure the City's annexation of the Okeechobee Center through litigation occurred in 1980.4 Pursuant to a settlement agreement, the City and City Commission agreed to appoint an "Annexation Com...
...any action which would create enclaves, pockets, or finger areas in serpentine patterns. Any annexation proceeding in any county in the state shall be designed in such a manner as to ensure that the area will be reasonably compact." Fla. Stat. Ann. § 171.031(12). 15 " 'Contiguous' means that a substantial part of a boundary of the territory sought to be annexed by the municipality is coterminous with a part of the boundary of the municipality.......
...we conclude that the City's reliance on the 1974 annexation statute as a justification for the denial of Peterson's request to annex the Okeechobee Center does entities to be annexed in a corridor fashion to gain contiguity...." Fla. Stat. Ann. § 171.031(11). Prior to 1975, section 171.031(11) stated, in relevant part: "Local rights-of-way, utility easements, or railroad rights-of-way shall not be annexed in a corridor fashion to gain contiguity nor shall such activity be deemed to establish the contiguity required under this act." 1974 Fla. Laws ch....
Copy

Burton v. City of Belle Glade, 178 F.3d 1175 (11th Cir. 1999).

Cited 213 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

...Notably, according to these provisions, the statute prohibited municipalities from annexing any property that did not meet the statute’s definition of contiguity. See 1974 Fla. Laws ch. 74-190, § 1 (codified as amended at Fla. Stat. Ann. § 171.031(11) (West 1987)).3 Two attempts to secure the City’s annexation of the Okeechobee Center through litigation occurred in 1980.4 Pursuant to a settlement agreement, the City and City Commission agreed to appoint an “Annexation...
...precludes any action which would create enclaves, pockets, or finger areas in serpentine patterns. Any annexation proceeding in any county in the state shall be designed in such a manner as to ensure that the area will be reasonably compact.’” Fla. Stat. Ann. § 171.031(12). 15 “‘Contiguous’ means that a substantial part of a boundary of the territory sought to be annexed by the municipality is coterminous with a part of the boundary of the municipality. . . . However, nothing herein shall be construed to allow local rights-of-way, utility easements, railroad rights-of-way, or like entities to be annexed in a corridor fashion to gain contiguity . . . .” Fla. Stat. Ann. § 171.031(11). Prior to 1975, section 171.031(11) stated, in relevant part: “Local rights-of-way, utility easements, or railroad rights-of-way shall not be annexed in a corridor fashion to gain contiguity nor shall such activity be deemed to establish the contiguity required under this act.” 1974 Fla....
Copy

SCA Servs., ETC. v. City of Tallahassee, 418 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

Cited 10 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal

...in thirty days following passage of the annexation ordinance, and (4) seek review by certiorari in circuit court. SCA asserted that its constitutional right of access to courts is barred since it is not a "party affected." Art. I, § 21, Fla. Const. Section 171.031(5), Florida Statutes, defines "parties affected" as "any ......
Copy

Martin Cnty. v. City of Stuart, 736 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

Cited 9 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 493267

...The petitions, which were consolidated, challenged the annexations as failing to result in a compact urban form as required by section 171.044, Florida Statutes (1997). The circuit court granted certiorari as to two of the parcels because they violated section 171.031(12), Florida Statutes, which precludes annexations which "would create enclaves, pockets, or finger areas in serpentine patterns," but denied certiorari as to the remaining parcels....
...ect law." The Heggs court, in resolving the question of whether Combs and Education Development were different standards, concluded that "they are the same." Heggs, 658 So.2d at 531. The county first argues that the circuit court erroneously applied section 171.031(12), which precludes "enclaves, pockets or finger areas," to the individual parcels being annexed, rather than to the shape of the city after annexation. Significantly, the county acknowledges that section 171.031(12) is the correct law, but contends that it was applied incorrectly....
...30. Because the circuit court did apply the correct law, we should not, under Heggs, grant certiorari review as to that issue. The county also argues that if we look at the shape of the city after annexation, there are "finger areas" in violation of section 171.031(12)....
Copy

City of Sunrise v. Broward Cnty., 473 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

Cited 9 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2000

...unicipal enclaves, and the statute does not purport to prohibit or otherwise regulate enclaves of county land brought about by municipal annexation. 1980 Op.Att'y.Gen. Fla. 080-84 (September 30, 1980). The opinion referred to sections 171.044(1) and 171.031(12) both of which are concerned with and refer to the "area" or the "piece of property" to be annexed and noted that both sections possess the purpose of assuring creation of geographically unified and compact municipalities. Section 171.031(12), Florida Statutes (1983), defines "compactness" as: concentration of a piece of property in a single area and precludes any action which would create enclaves, pockets, or finger areas in serpentine patterns....
...1). Here, the area sought to be annexed is not reasonably compact since it not only creates enclaves but also annexes finger areas in a serpentine pattern, which is also in violation of the compactness requirement. See definition of "compactness" in section 171.031(12) set forth above....
...he will suffer material injury by reason of the failure of the city to comply with the statutory procedure for annexation to seek certiorari review of the proposed ordinance. That Broward County is a "party affected" seems clear from the wording of section 171.031(5), Florida Statutes (1983), which defines parties affected as any person or firm owning property in the annexed area of "any governmental unit with jurisdiction over such area." Furthermore, Broward County's allegation that it believ...
Copy

Burton v. City of Belle Glade, 966 F. Supp. 1178 (S.D. Fla. 1997).

Cited 6 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7124, 1997 WL 274664

...ty; and when any provision or provisions of special law or laws prohibit the annexation of territory that is separated from the annexing municipality by a body of water or watercourse, then that law shall prevent annexation under this act. Fla.Stat. § 171.031(11)....
...ecludes any action which would create enclaves, pockets, or finger areas in serpentine patterns. Any annexation proceeding in any county in the state shall be designed in such a manner as to ensure that the area will be reasonably compact. Fla.Stat. § 171.031(12)....
...On the other hand, defendants point to the following prohibition in the statute: "[N]othing herein shall be construed to allow local rights-of-way, utility easements, railroad rights-of-way, or like entities to be annexed in a corridor fashion to gain contiguity. ..." Fla.Stat. § 171.031(11)....
...corridor, but which is otherwise surrounded by unincorporated land," the Attorney General again answered no. 1985 Fla.Op.Atty.Gen. 163. Although concluding that such an annexation would not necessarily violate the corridor annexation prohibition of Section 171.031(11), the Attorney General nonetheless found that it would violate the statute's compactness requirement. Plaintiffs characterize this opinion as supporting their view that the contiguity requirement of Section 171.031(11) does not prevent the annexation of the Okeechobee center, and, in a narrow way, the opinion does indeed support their interpretation of that section of the statute....
...The statute specifically allows annexation in those situations. [5] The Court would note that a 1993 statutory amendment defining "enclave" would appear to mean that the Okeechobee Center, if annexed, would not be an enclave within the meaning of the statute. Fla.Laws 93-206, codified at Fla. Stat. § 171.031(13). But even if a roadway annexation would not create an enclave, it would nonetheless violate the compactness requirement. See Fla.Stat. § 171.031(12) (defining enclave as one of the things forbidden under compactness requirement)....
Copy

Cnty. of Volusia v. City of Deltona, 925 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 460, 2006 WL 140380

...The circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law in determining the property was contiguous. Property is contiguous when "[a] substantial part of a boundary of the territory sought to be annexed by a municipality is coterminous with a part of the boundary of the municipality." § 171.031(11); see also Sanford v....
...5th DCA 1989) (noting that "contiguous" in annexation has been defined as "touching or adjoining in a reasonably substantial ... sense"). Local rights-of-way, utility easements, railroad rights-of-way, and like entities may not be annexed *344 in corridor fashion to gain contiguity. § 171.031(11)....
...The court compared this parcel with that in Ropac, which had shared only 250 feet with the adjoining municipality and was determined to be contiguous. Id. at 278. The court found that this parcel did not constitute an invalid corridor because it was not a right-of-way, easement, or like entity. See § 171.031(11)....
...The court below relied on Sanford to find that, because all 350 feet of the Gray parcel's western boundary adjoined the City, the contiguity requirement was met. However, the court acknowledged that the three owners submitted their annexation applications as a unified request to annex all the property together. Section 171.031(11) requires that "a substantial part of a boundary of the territory to be annexed by the municipality [be] coterminous with a part of the boundary of the municipality." Of the annexed property's entire western border of 22,116 feet, only 350 feet (1.6%) is coterminous with the City boundary. The court departed from the essential requirements of law by focusing only on the Gray property to find that a substantial part of the boundary of the territory was contiguous. Section 171.031(11) requires that a substantial portion of a boundary of the territory annexed must be coterminous with the City's boundary....
Copy

City of Tampa v. Hillsborough Cnty., 504 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).

Cited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 143

...for annexation as they apply to his property may file a petition in circuit court for certiorari review of the annexation plan. Hillsborough County is a party affected because it is a governmental unit with jurisdiction over the area to be annexed. § 171.031(5)....
Copy

City of Tallahassee v. Kovach, 733 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1999 WL 312242

...ng that the Kovachs had standing to challenge the annexation by certiorari pursuant to chapter 171. The question of the Kovachs' standing is dispositive of the question of their entitlement to certiorari relief. Purporting to refer to the wording of section 171.031(5), Florida Statutes (1995), the final judgment entered below conferred standing upon the Kovachs: Standing is established because the Plaintiffs are "in" the area to be annexed as required by Chapter 171, Florida Statutes, due to the...
...area to be annexed on three sides and the only other boundary line is a county road. Therefore, Plaintiff's property is almost totally encapsulated by the proposed annexation and they are residing within the area to be annexed. This construction of section 171.031 is plainly erroneous....
...county in which the municipality or municipalities are located seeking review by certiorari. In any action instituted pursuant to this section, the complainant, should he or she prevail, shall be entitled to reasonable costs and attorney's fees. In section 171.031(5), Florida Statutes (1995), the Legislature has provided a definition of "parties affected": any persons or firms owning property in, or residing in, either a municipality proposing annexation or contraction or owning property that i...
Copy

City of Ctr. Hill v. McBryde, 952 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 858636

...may petition the governing body of said municipality that said property be annexed to the municipality." "Any annexation proceeding in any county in the state shall be designed in such a manner as to ensure that the area will be reasonably compact." § 171.031(12), Fla....
Copy

City of Sanford v. Seminole Cnty., 538 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).

Cited 3 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 409, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 597, 1989 WL 8703

...the governing body of said municipality that said property be annexed to the municipality. "Contiguous" means that a substantial part of a boundary of the territory sought to be annexed is coterminous with a part of the boundary of the municipality. § 171.031(11), Fla....
...l property, and far more than just the corner of the Paulucci property abuts the existing municipal limits. The County's argument that only a small percentage of the entire circumference of the properties touches municipal property is without merit. Section 171.031(11) only requires "that a substantial part of a boundary" touch municipal property....
...se. May v. Lee County, supra . We also agree with the City's contention that the circuit court applied the wrong law in concluding that the annexed areas were not compact. Section 171.044(1) requires that the subject land be "reasonably compact" and section 171.031(12) defines "compactness": "Compactness" means concentration of a piece of property in a single area and precludes any action which would create enclaves, pockets, or finger areas in serpentine patterns....
Copy

Pinellas Cnty. v. City of Largo, 964 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Cited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2007 WL 2713544

...Ordinance 02-48 (the Contraction Ordinance). The County sought to contract the size of certain municipalities, including the Cities. A "`contraction' means the reversion of real property within municipal boundaries to an unincorporated *851 status." § 171.031(2)....
...nse of legislative provisions which cannot coexist." (citations omitted)). Further, the Act, itself, constrains a charter county. For example, any annexation "shall be designed in such a manner as to ensure that the area will be reasonably compact." § 171.031(12)....
Copy

Ago (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1980).

Published | Florida Attorney General Reports

Shores, 356 So.2d 932 (1 D.C.A. Fla., 1978). Section 171.031, F. S., defines, for the purposes of ch. 171
Copy

Ago (Fla. Att'y Gen. 2007).

Published | Florida Attorney General Reports

for certiorari review in circuit court. 8 Section 171.031(5), Fla. Stat.
Copy

City of Panama City v. Munroe, 700 So. 2d 128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11189, 1997 WL 614416

standing to challenge the annexation under section 171.031(5), Florida Statutes (1996), as respondent
Copy

Matlacha Civic Assoc., Inc. v. City of Cape Coral, Florida, 273 So. 3d 243 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida

are located seeking review by certiorari. Section 171.031(5) defines "parties affected" as
Copy

Ago (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1985).

Published | Florida Attorney General Reports

charter does not so specify such matters). Section 171.031(11), F.S. (1984 Supp.), provides in pertinent
Copy

Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs v. City of Cocoa, 953 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 91, 2007 WL 28294

...exed property was coterminous to the City of Deltona. We held: The (circuit) court departed from the essential requirements of law by focusing only on the Gray property to find that a substantial part of the boundary of the territory was contiguous. Section 171.031(11) requires that a substantial portion of a boundary of the territory annexed must be coterminous with the City's boundary....
Copy

SCA Servs. of Florida, Inc. v. City of Tallahassee, 393 So. 2d 35 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19405

Chapter 171 to seek review in the Circuit Court. Section 171.-031(5), Fla.Stat. (1979), defines “parties affected”
Copy

May v. Lee Cnty., 483 So. 2d 481 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986).

Published | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 417, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 6294

employed in section 171.021 and defined in section 171.031(8). Further, under the voluntary annexation
Copy

City of Oak Hill v. City of Edgewater, 917 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).

Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 19955, 2005 WL 3439916

Edgewater was an “affected party” as defined under section 171.031(5). We grant certiorari and quash that portion
Copy

Ago (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1998).

Published | Florida Attorney General Reports

Stat. 9 Section 171.046(1), Fla. Stat. 10 Section 171.031(13), Fla. Stat. 11 473 So.2d 1387, 1389 (Fla
Copy

Ago (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1990).

Published | Florida Attorney General Reports

041, F.S.). And see, s.166.041(6), F.S. 4 Section 171.031(4), F.S. 5 Section 171.0413(2)(b), F.S. 6 See

This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.